Allotment of Paddy – Dispute with MARKFED – Petitioner seeks to set aside an order declining allotment – Legal history of civil suits, appeals, and encashment of bank guarantee – Division Bench's declaration of bank guarantee encashment as illegal – Lack of a crystallized demand against the petitioner – Petitioner's history of paddy allotment from 1995-1996 to 2022-2023 – Impugned order seemingly contrary to court orders and law – No specific policy clause invoked by the respondent to deny allotment – Petition allowed, impugned order set aside, and directed respondents to consider petitioner for the allotment of free paddy for KMS 2023-2024. [Para 1-10]

Essential Pre-requisites under Section 138 of NI Act: Referring to a prior judgment, the Court reiterated the importance of certain dates to be clear in the complaint for making out an offence under Section 138, NI Act. Such dates include the date on the cheque, date of deposit, date of bank’s notice concerning bouncing, date of notice by the drawee/payee to the drawer, date of notice receipt by the drawer, and the date of complaint filing. [Para 7]

Receipt of Demand Notice – Inference from Records: The Court highlighted that while the date of receipt of the demand notice is crucial, it need not be explicitly mentioned in the complaint. It can be inferred from the documents/evidence on record. [Para 8]

Presumption of Service of Notice: Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Court elucidated the presumptions under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act concerning service of notice. It’s noted that the presumption of service is deemed effected if sent to the correct address by registered post, unless proved otherwise by the addressee. [Para 9-10]

Affirmation of Summoning Order: The Court found no infirmity, illegality or irregularity in the summoning order dated 19.07.2022 and the order dated 01.06.2023, thereby dismissing the petition. The trial court’s presumption regarding the service of demand notice was deemed justified even in the absence of a track consignment report, given the notice was sent via registered post to the correct address. [Para 10-11]

Bail – Grant of Bail – Conditions Imposed – Petitioner seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC in connection with FIR No. 932 dated 04.06.2023, alleging corruption and other offences – Petitioner agrees to maintain only one mobile number and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice – State opposes bail – Court grants bail subject to several terms and conditions. [Para 1-2, 5]

Criminal Procedure – Bail Conditions – Court imposes conditions including furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000, providing a surety of Rs. 25,000, and not influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence – Petitioner directed to use only one prepaid mobile phone number till the conclusion of the trial – Conditions deemed necessary to ensure fair trial and compliance. [Para 10-15]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Precedents – Court refers to precedents such as Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) to justify the grant of bail and imposition of conditions – Emphasizes balancing liberty of accused with necessity of fair trial. [Para 6-7, 15]

Decision – Grant of Bail – Court allows petition and grants bail to petitioner subject to specified terms and conditions – Observes that conditions are imposed to ensure desirable behavior from the accused and protection from incarceration. [Para 18-20]

Transfer Petition – Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Petition for the transfer of the case filed by the respondent-husband under the Hindu Marriage Act from the Family Court, Bathinda to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Dabwali, District Sirsa – Reliance on previous orders and judgments emphasizing the convenience of female litigants in matrimonial disputes – Transfer allowed subject to conditions.

Convenience of Female Litigants – In matrimonial disputes, the Court should give more weightage and consideration to the convenience of female litigants – Transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to another should be allowed, taking into account their convenience – Courts should avoid putting female litigants under undue hardships.

Factors for Transfer – While considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute at the instance of the wife, the Court should consider the family condition of the wife, custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health, earning capacity of the husband, and most importantly, the convenience of the wife.

Decision – Transfer of the petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act from the Family Court, Bathinda to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Dabwali, District Sirsa – Directions given for the transfer of records and appearance of parties – Emphasis on referring the case for mediation and conciliation – Conditions laid down for the respondent in case of revival of the petition.

Bail Application – Denial of Bail by Trial Court – Petitioner seeks release as an undertrial in a case registered under Sections 307, 353, 186, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, following the denial of bail by the trial court. The case pertains to allegations of the petitioner threatening and firing shots at his wife, daughter, and the police. [Para 1]

Allegations and Arrest – Firing and Threatening – The petitioner is accused of threatening his wife and daughter while in an inebriated condition and firing shots towards them and the police. The petitioner was arrested on May 30, 2023, and a .12 bore licensed gun, along with cartridges, was recovered from him. [Para 2]

Defense Arguments – False Implication and No Need for Custodial Interrogation – The defense contends that the FIR was based on a false version by the complainant, who is the petitioner's wife, and argues that there is no need for further custodial interrogation as there is nothing left to be recovered and no indication of tampering with evidence. [Para 3, 3.1, 3.2]

State's Opposition – Serious Allegations and Possibility of Fleeing – The State opposes the bail application, citing serious allegations against the petitioner and concerns about the possibility of him fleeing from trial proceedings. [Para 4]

Court's Observation – Completed Investigation and Slow Trial Progress – The court notes that the investigation against the petitioner has been completed, charges were framed, and the trial is expected to take a long time. The petitioner has been in detention for more than four months. [Para 6]

Grant of Bail – Stable Residence and Clean Antecedents – Considering the overall scenario, the court allows the petition and orders the release of the petitioner on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds. The court clarifies that any observations made are for the limited purpose of the bail hearing and shall not affect the merits of the case. [Para 8-12]

Quashing of FIR: The petitioner, Ravi Kant, seeks the quashing of FIR No. 2387 dated 12.12.2019, registered under Section 174-A of IPC, 1860, at Police Station Shivaji Nagar Gurugram, following his declaration as a proclaimed person in a case concerning a dishonored cheque [Para 1].

Compromise & Settlement: A compromise was reached between the petitioner and the complainant, leading to the dismissal of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner contends that he was wrongly declared a proclaimed person [Para 1].

Precedents & Legal Position: The court refers to similar cases where FIRs under Section 174-A IPC were quashed after settlements in the main petitions under Section 138 of the Act. The continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC is deemed an abuse of the process of law [Para 4-5].

Decision: The court allows the petition, quashing FIR No. 2387 dated 12.12.2019 and all subsequent proceedings arising from it [Para 5].

Land Acquisition Law - Limitation for Reference – Appeal against dismissal on Limitation Grounds – Appeal challenging the dismissal of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act due to limitation – Reference Court found the application filed after three years from the date of knowledge of the award when compensation was received – High Court held that the Reference Court was correct in taking the date of receipt of compensation as the date of knowledge of the award – Appellants failed to prove efforts to obtain the award copy or justify the delay – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-19]

Determination of Knowledge and Limitation – Analysis – Held, date of compensation receipt conclusively taken as the date of knowledge of the award – Requirement to file reference within six months from this date – Actual or constructive knowledge of award contents can be established by proving receipt or drawing of compensation – Appellants' plea of no knowledge of essential award contents unsupported by evidence – Admission of compensation receipt deemed sufficient for constructive knowledge. [Paras 5, 10-12]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit – Reference filed after the limitation period prescribed under Section 18(2)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act – No substantial evidence of efforts to obtain the award copy or any justification for the long delay in filing the reference – Limitation period strictly enforced to prevent abuse of process. [Para 18]

Bail Application - Petitioner seeking release as an undertrial in a case under the NDPS Act - Original FIR filed against unknown individuals - Petitioner's counsel contends no substantial link between petitioner and the alleged offense, emphasizing innocence and fabricated FIR - Lack of evidence against the petitioner - Trial anticipated to be lengthy - No useful purpose served in detaining petitioner. [Para 2-3.1]

Opposition by State - Concerns about petitioner fleeing trial proceedings if granted bail - Alleged recovery falls within the category of commercial quantity - Petitioner a habitual offender - Charges framed, investigation complete, and trial in progress - No requirement for custodial interrogation. [Para 4-6]

Court's Observation - Continued preventive custody based on unsubstantiated suspicion of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses - Documentary evidence already filed and not accessible to the accused - No probability of tampering with evidence - Witnesses are official and unlikely to be influenced - Non-violent nature of the offense - No threat to society at large - Reasonable ground to believe petitioner may not be guilty - Responsible family man unlikely to pose flight risk or evade trial proceedings. [Para 7-9]

Decision - Bail granted to the petitioner - Ordered to be released on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court - Prosecution allowed to seek bail cancellation if petitioner gets involved in any offense while on bail - Observations for bail hearing purposes only and should not influence the merits of the case. [Para 10-13]

Criminal Case - Conviction under Section 304(Part-II) of IPC - Appellant convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.1,000 imposed - Acquittal from the offence under Sections 498A and 341 of the IPC - Appellant's legal fees and expenses quantified at Rs.20,000 to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee - Interim Application No. 3581 of 2022 disposed of. [Para 25-28]